[B!0HaZard]

Quote:

Intel's Sandy Bridge-based processors dramatically advance gaming value by increasing performance at lower prices than LGA 1366-based configurations. But is the platform it sits on worthy of that CPU? We test three slot configurations to find out.

Source

Interesting for people considering SLI/CF on boards that don't support 16/16.

 

[glycerin256]

interesting and good to know.

BUT WHY NOT USE A 580 and/or A 6970?!?

still though. a good read.

 

[CULLEN]

Every scaling comparison I've seen, AMD destroys nVidia but in the TomsH review its the other way around.

Also why comparing $230 card against $350 card? Why isn't this HD697 against GTX570?

Getting sick of this AMD bash.

 

[Masked]

Quote:

Originally Posted by glycerin256 interesting and good to know. BUT WHY NOT USE A 580 and/or A 6970?!? still though. a good read.

Would have gotten the same results regardless of card...It's a test on the slot more/less...

 

[Masked]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CULLEN Every scaling comparison I've seen, AMD destroys nVidia but in the TomsH review its the other way around. Also why comparing $230 card against $350 card? Why isn't this HD697 against GTX570? Getting sick of this AMD bash.

It's a test on the slot...They could've used a GTX 280 vs a 6970...It wouldn't matter because you'd still be losing the same performance...

AMD bash? Really? Seriously?

Ugh, some of you people amaze me.

 

[B!0HaZard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CULLEN Every scaling comparison I've seen, AMD destroys nVidia but in the TomsH review its the other way around. Also why comparing $230 card against $350 card? Why isn't this HD697 against GTX570? Getting sick of this AMD bash.

They aren't comparing the cards, they're comparing AMD and NVIDIA scaling. Stop being so dramatic.

 

[killeraxemannic]

I really expected more of a hit for the 4x honestly. Its good to know running the 8x won't really hurt performance much at all!

 

[21276]

Quote:

Originally Posted by B!0HaZard They aren't comparing the cards, they're comparing AMD and NVIDIA scaling. Stop being so dramatic.

Bingo. They aren't trying for one card to top the other card, they are simply saying, "Hey, this is a common nVidia card, and this is a common ATI card. Let's use them for a demonstration!".

 

[SlayerS_`Archduke`]

It's great to finally see a well-done test on PCIe bandwidth. I think this will put to rest a lot of concerns people have with running multiple GPU setups and having to use PCIe x8 slots for some of the cards.

 

[Track]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masked They could've used a GTX 280 vs a 6970.

I agree.

I would have been a better comparison to put an old card that doesn't take much bandwidth versus a new card, to show the difference.

But I suppose they were going for an AMD vs nVidia thing.

 

[Track]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masked It's a test on the slot...They could've used a GTX 280 vs a 6970...It wouldn't matter because you'd still be losing the same performance...

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

What you're suggesting is that a 6600 GT requires the same amount of bandwidth as a GTX 580.

No. Newer cards need more and more bandwidth, which is the entire reason for the creation of PCIe 3.0.

 

[Paradigm Shifter]

It's an updated version of the TechPowerUp! PCI-E bandwidth tests, which gave similar results IIRC - basically no real difference between 16x/16x and 8x/8x, but stick a card in a 4x slot and watch it have a fairly large impact.

What was interesting is the fact that this demonstrates that AMD cards appear to utilise the PCI-E bus a lot more than nVidia ones, given the performance drops when PCI-E bandwidth starvation is enforced.

Would be very interesting to see a single/dual/tri/quad- CrossFireX/SLI investigation using all the possible lane setups. But that's a lot of work, and requires a quad-capable mobo that allows PCI-E lane selection.

 

[PoopaScoopa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CULLEN Every scaling comparison I've seen, AMD destroys nVidia but in the TomsH review its the other way around. Also why comparing $230 card against $350 card? Why isn't this HD697 against GTX570? Getting sick of this AMD bash.

Just single card comparisons.
570 is actually $280 not 350.

TL;DR version: Don't go above 2-way on 1155 and make sure it's x8/x8.

 

[JedixJarf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by glycerin256 interesting and good to know. BUT WHY NOT USE A 580 and/or A 6970?!? still though. a good read.

For real...

 

[CULLEN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masked It's a test on the slot...They could've used a GTX 280 vs a 6970...It wouldn't matter because you'd still be losing the same performance... AMD bash? Really? Seriously? Ugh, some of you people amaze me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B!0HaZard They aren't comparing the cards, they're comparing AMD and NVIDIA scaling. Stop being so dramatic.

What I'm saying is many people look at this comparison, naturally thing "they probably use cards in the same price range" and see this

Where the AMD is slightly under in performance, but huge price differance.

Never the less they also made another scaling comparison, that had HD6950 against GTX 570. $240 card against $360 card. Why in the world wouldn't they use cards in the same price category?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...g,2865-10.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa Just single card comparisons. 570 is actually $280 not 350. TL;DR version: Don't go above 2-way on 1155 and make sure it's x8/x8.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...iption=gtx+570

From what I see they are from $350 to $370.

---

However its impressive to see how little nVidia drops in x4, but who would seriously use it?

 

[B!0HaZard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CULLEN What I'm saying is many people look at this comparison, naturally thing "they probably use cards in the same price range" and see this Where the AMD is slightly under in performance, but huge price differance. Never the less they also made another scaling comparison, that had HD6950 against GTX 570. $240 card against $360 card. Why in the world wouldn't they use cards in the same price category? http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...g,2865-10.html http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...iption=gtx+570 From what I see they are from $350 to $370. --- However its impressive to see how little nVidia drops in x4, but who would seriously use it?

Price and how these cards compare is irrelevant, that's why. The important thing is that they get cards from the same gen, because they're comparing how NVIDIA and AMD cards scale (a feature in the cards). Who gives a crap about the cards in question, people won't be reading a PCIE analysis if they're looking for a comparison.

 

[PoopaScoopa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CULLEN http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...iption=gtx+570 From what I see they are from $350 to $370. ?

Did you look at the prices? Newegg is $330 but Newegg isn't the cheapest place to buy cards from. 280-290 elsewhere. But unlocking those 6950s to 6970s and OCing to 880Mhz is definitely a better choice.

 

[Track]

The used the GTX 570 and HD 6950 because those are the second highest cards both companies have.

Isn't this obvious?

GTX 590 - HD 6990
GTX 580 - HD 6970
GTX 570 - HD 6950

etc.

 

[r34p3rex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CULLEN Every scaling comparison I've seen, AMD destroys nVidia but in the TomsH review its the other way around. Also why comparing $230 card against $350 card? Why isn't this HD697 against GTX570? Getting sick of this AMD bash.

I'm getting sick of people not reading the article. They're testing for PCIe scaling, not performance. If you bothered to read the title, you'd probably understand.

 

[Kvjavs]

This article makes me reconsider AMD cards and the possibility of x16/x4 Crossfire...

Hrmm... Certainly would be a nice money saver considering most x8/x8 motherboards cost more than x16/x4's.